Mandatory Masks Can Cause Considerable Harm and Are Not Proven Effective

Evidence that face masks reduce the transmission of viral respiratory infections within community settings is equivocal at best.[4]^,[5],[6]A recent meta-analysis of scientific literature, including 11 randomized, controlled trials and 10 observational studies, found that there was no clear clinical or laboratory-confirmed evidence that masks prevent infection.[7]

To the contrary, the study warned that facemasks “…may even increase transmission if they act as fomites [objects or materials that are likely to carry infection] or prompt other behaviours that transmit the virus such as face touching.”

This echoes World Health Organization (WHO) guidance published on January 29, 2020 titled, “Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (‎‎‎‎‎2019-nCoV)‎‎‎‎‎ outbreak.”[8]In it, the WHO says, “Wearing medical masks when not indicated may cause unnecessary cost, procurement burden and create a false sense of security that can lead to neglecting other essential measures such as hand hygiene practices.” Furthermore, the January 2020 WHO guidance stated, “Cloth (e.g., cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance.”

Cloth masks have been found to be particularly problematic,[9]^,[10],[11] and some masks have raised concerns because they’ve been treated with a registered pesticide.[12]^,[13]A British Medical Journal (BMJ) study published in April 2020 cautions against the use of cloth masks, citing “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”[14]The WHO affirms increased infection risk with cloth masks in its latest June 5, 2020 guidance.[15]It based its guidance on an earlier BMJ study that found the penetration of particles to be 97% in the cloth mask group, with significantly higher rates of infection and influenza-like illness.[16]

A study on the CDC website that reviewed 10 different randomized clinical trials worldwide on highly infectious respiratory virus transmission found “no significant reduction” in “transmission with the use of face masks.”[17]

Given the lack of evidence for their use,[18]^{,[19],[20],[21],[22],[23]}and flip-flopping advice both against[24][25]and for their use by authoritative health agencies like the WHO, the increasing pressure to wear masks in public – and to be able to access basic services required to maintain one’s health, liberty and livelihood – constitutes an unnecessary power grab and means of controlling the population.

Fear Is Driving Violence and Aggression

Nonstop media and social media coverage of coronavirus has generated unprecedented levels of fear, panic and anxiety.[26]^,[27],[28]On June 30, Dr. Anthony Fauci warned lawmakers that we could easily see 100,000 new cases of coronavirus each day.[29],[30]Fauci stated that he is unable to accurately predict the incidence and mortality that the US will eventually see, but he declared, “It’s going to be very disturbing, I will guarantee you that.”[31],[32]

Some individuals are now fraught with so much panic and worry[33]that they are becoming violent toward family members[34]and anyone they believe is a threat to their personal safety. Aggression toward those who don’t wear masks is becoming is increasingly common and ranges from verbal threats, to assault and battery, to murder.

In March, an 86-year-old dementia patient was killed in a Brooklyn emergency room after she lost her bearings and grabbed onto another patient’s IV pole to steady herself.[35]The patient, 32-year-old Cassandra Lundy, became irate that the elderly woman, Janie Marshall, had broken social distancing guidelines and then knocked her to the floor.[36]

Ms. Marshall – who initially went to the ER for severe abdominal pains – struck her head on the floor, lost consciousness and died hours later. According to reports, Ms. Lundy, who has been charged with manslaughter, told detectives that she shoved Ms. Marshall because the elderly woman “got into the defendant’s space.”[37]

The Great Mask Divide

Masks have become one of the most controversial issues of our time.[38]^,[39],[40]Those who are seen in public without a mask are often judged and discriminated against,[41]^,[42]even if they have a condition that precludes compliance. Harassment and discrimination have become rampant,[43]^,[44]and fellow citizens are policing each other with very little to no knowledge of why someone may or may not be wearing a mask.[45]^,[46]

Even in communities that have mask exceptions for certain members of the population, those individuals are no longer allowed to fully participate in society because businesses are barring them or won’t provide services to them without a mask.It’s a breach of an individual’s privacy and autonomy to not be able to go into public without being discriminated against, and banning people from entering or participating in society because they don’t wear a mask violates their constitutional rights.[47]

These types of breaches have sparked lawsuits nationwide from individuals claiming they have been personally or financially harmed from mandatory mask measures.[48]^,[49],[50]Some also contend that forcing people with medical conditions to wear masks violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,[51]which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability of “enjoyment of services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations by any person who … operates a place of public accommodation.”[52]

Individual Health Is the Responsibility of the Individual, Not the State

With unbridled governmental control throughout much of 2020 – under the guise of emergency orders needed to curb coronavirus – citizens from coast to coast have seen their civil, constitutional and religious rights trampled upon.[53]^,[54]An onslaught of executive orders have shaped nearly every aspect of our personal lives, from where we can go and what activities we’re allowed to engage in, to how we educate our children, to how we earn a living, to how we worship.[55]

They have also dictated which medical philosophies we embrace and which medical treatments we can receive. In doing so, we’ve been extremely restricted in how we’ve been able to care for ourselves and support our immune systems – and we’ve been asked to follow guidelines that are not evidence-based “for the greater good.”

Although the government plays a role in controlling the spread of infectious illness, adults are responsible for their own health;[56]each person has the right to responsibly make choices about what precautions and perceived risks they take. It’s not incumbent on government officials to direct individual health decisions, and granting them this power is dangerous. Individuals are much more qualified than public servants to weigh the risks and benefits of their own personal actions.

Public officials should not impose mandates to seek compliance. Mandates perpetuate the idea that individuals lack the moral or intellectual capacity to make sound decisions for themselves and their children, so the state needs to do it for them.[57]Individuals are capable of making responsible decisions,[58]and those decisions must take a person’s whole health into account.

The health of the individual cannot be forsaken or sacrificed for the collective. We can only have a healthy society when that society is made up of healthy individuals.[59]Health is a personal right and responsibility. It is not something that we should look to the government to bestow on us or guarantee.

Masks as “Submission Signaling”

There is no compelling scientific evidence to justify the widespread push to mandate universal mask-wearing.[60]The demonstrated risks[61]^,[62],[63]far outweigh the purported benefits. Whereas those who wear masks believe they are “virtue signaling” their concern for the weakest and most vulnerable among us, those who refuse to submit to authoritarian decrees do so because they believe that health is a personal responsibility – and that it is up to them to decide what precautionary measures they implement to avoid a virus with an estimated case fatality rate of .1% to .26%.[64]

At-risk populations and those who are sick can self-isolate, and society should take the best care of them possible. However,healthy, law-abiding citizens should not be forced to take any precaution that can result in physical[65]and emotional harm[66]and that impinges on their constitutional rights; this includes the right to bodily autonomy, the right to move about freely, the right to participate in society and connect with others, and the right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion.[67]

It’s Time to Stand – Urge Your Lawmakers to Make Face Coverings Voluntary

Never before has it been so important for you to stand up for your rights! Mandatory medicine and mandated interventions such as social distancing and mask-wearing have no place in a free society;[68]^,[69]citizens have the right to make responsible decisions about what is best for themselves and their children based on their own unique circumstances.

Please stand up against medical tyranny by sending your state and local officials a pre-drafted email and tweet urging them to protect everyone in the community by ensuring that masks are voluntary, not mandatory.When you’re finished, please share this vital campaign with your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. Remind them that constitutional rights don’t stop being important in times of emergency;[70]^,[71]they become more important. 

References

[1]https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/facing-your-face-mask-duties-list-statewide-orders

2]https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-the-17-states-requiring-people-to-wear-masks-public-2020-6

[3]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/07/03/covid-face-masks-states-require-public/5371503002/

4]Med Hypotheses. 2020 May 19;143:109855.doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109855. Online ahead of print.

[5]Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 24;M20-3213. doi: 10.7326/M20-3213. Online ahead of print.

[6]medRxiv – April 6, 2020

[7]https://www.qeios.com/read/1SC5L4

[8]https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330987

[9]https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

[10]Cardiol J. 2020;27(2):218-219. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2020.0054. Epub 2020 Apr 14.

[11]The Epoch Times

[12]https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/tennessee-governors-free-sock-masks-treated-with-registered-pesticide

[13]https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2020/06/face-masks-that-contain-toxic-pesticide-distributed-in-tennessee-for-coronavirus-then-recalled/

[14]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/#__ffn_sectitle

[15]https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak

[16]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/#__ffn_sectitle

[17]https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

[18]BMJ April 7, 2020; 369:m1422 doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1422

[19]https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

[20]https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/cloth-masks-are-useless-against-covid-19

[21]American Thinker

[22]https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy?fbclid=IwAR3XrEyWaRxO8qWOqsySq_wPutL4JGx00FKV5VwL8O8P9X5Z156n_qoWSC8

[23]https://jennifermargulis.net/healthy-people-wearing-masks-during-covid19/

[24]https://www.novushealth.com/2020/04/face-masks-in-a-covid-19-world-to-wear-or-not-to-wear/

[25]Twitter, U.S. Surgeon General, February 29, 2020

[26]Cureus. 2020 May 2;12(5):e7923. doi: 10.7759/cureus.7923.

[27]J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 19;22(5):e19556. doi: 10.2196/19556.

[28]https://qz.com/1812664/the-psychology-of-coronavirus-fear-and-how-to-overcome-it/

[29]https://www.c-span.org/video/?473393-1/covid-19-response-reopening-schools

[30]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/fauci-coronavirus.html

[31]https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/fauci-redford-testimony-senate-coronavirus/index.html

[32]https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/30/fauci-says-us-coronavirus-outbreak-is-going-to-be-very-disturbing-could-top-100000-cases-a-day.html

[33]Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020 May 21;20764020925835. doi: 10.1177/0020764020925835.

[34]Psychiatry Res. 2020 Apr 30;289:113046. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113046.

[35]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/nyregion/coronavirus-brooklyn-janie-marshall-cassandra-lundy.html

[36]https://bklyner.com/86-year-old-killed-coronavirus/

[37]https://patch.com/new-york/bed-stuy/social-distancing-death-suspect-held-coronavirus-packed-rikers

[38]BMJ 2020;369:m2005

[39]https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/controversy-covid-19-mask-study-spotlights-messiness-science-during

[40]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-act-be/202005/why-are-masks-triggering-conflict-and-rage

[41]BMJ 2020;369:m2009

[42]Disability Rights UK June 18, 2020

[43]https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/07/01/many-black-and-asian-americans-say-they-have-experienced-discrimination-amid-the-covid-19-outbreak/

[44]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1143163319383637&set=gm.4087336354647037&type=3&theater

[45]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/social-distancing-rules-coronavirus.html

[46]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-act-be/202005/why-are-masks-triggering-conflict-and-rage

[47]Cornell Law

[48]https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243643797.html

[49]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/social-distancing-rules-coronavirus.html

[50]https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/10/889691823/more-than-20-u-s-states-now-require-face-masks-in-public

[51]https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/06/22/lawsuits-against-giant-eagle-mask-policy/

[52]ADA Gov

[53]https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-never-sleep-the-aclu-in-the-pandemic/

[54]https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-coronavirus-crisis-constitution

[55]Ballotpedia

[56]https://jennifermargulis.net/science-shows-coronavirus-covid19-treatments-without-masks-lockdowns-isolation/

[57]https://standforhealthfreedom.com/blog/why-states-are-getting-it-wrong-with-medical-mandates/

[58]https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/beware-government-overreach-protect-our-health

[59]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/5-ways-to-build-healthier-societies/

[60]https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

[61]Neurocirugia (Astur).2008 Apr;19(2):121-6.

[62]Ann Occup Hyg. 2012 Jan;56(1):102-12.doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mer069. Epub 2011 Sep13.

[63]Acta Neurologica Scandinavica February 28, 2006.

[64]https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?articleTools=true

[65]BMJ 2020;369:m2003

[66]BMC Family Practice, 2013;Published online Dec. 24, 2013. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-14-200.

[67]DanPatrick.org – April 22, 2020.

[68]https://ahrp.org/beware-of-medicine-marching-in-lockstep-with-government-personal-reflections/

[69]https://freedomwire.com/masks-safety-or-control/

[70]https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/constitution-isnt-suspended-covid-19-attorney-general-barr-warns-public

[71]https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/opinion-wheres-the-line-on-constitutional-rights-in-a-pandemic/

1. Are Masks Effective? A meta-analysis found that face masks had no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: “Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.” This 2020 meta-analysis found that evidence from randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility. (2) Another recent review found that masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to, in 3 of 31 studies, “very slightly reduced” odds of developing influenza-like illness. (3) This 2019 study of 2,862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks “resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.” (4) This 2016 meta-analysis found that both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. It was also found that acute respiratory infection transmission “may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday.” (5) A 2011 meta-analysis of 17 studies regarding masks and effect on transmission of influenza found that “none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” (6) However, authors speculated that effectiveness of masks may be linked to early, consistent and correct usage. Face mask use was likewise found to be not protective against the common cold, compared to controls without face masks among healthcare workers. (7) Airflow around masks Masks have been assumed to be effective in obstructing forward travel of viral particles. Considering those positioned next to or behind a mask wearer, there have been farther transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals, by means of “several leakage jets, including intense backward and downwards jets that may present major hazards,” and a “potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to several meters.” (8) All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However, Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively, vs none discernible with no mask. Backward unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking. For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edges of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask. (9) Penetration through masks A study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6% penetration (+ 34.7%). Most medical masks had over 20% penetration, while “general masks and handkerchiefs had no protective function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency.” The study found that “Medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols.” (10) It may be helpful to remember that an aerosol is a colloidal suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas. In respiration, the relevant aerosol is the suspension of bacterial or viral particles in inhaled or exhaled breath. In another study, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. (11) N95 respirators Honeywell is a manufacturer of N95 respirators. These are made with a 0.3 micron filter. (12) N95 respirators are so named, because 95% of particles having a diameter of 0.3 microns are filtered by the mask forward of the wearer, by use of an electrostatic mechanism. Coronaviruses are approximately 0.125 microns in diameter. This meta-analysis found that N95 respirators did not provide superior protection to facemasks against viral infections or influenza-like infections. (13) This study did find superior protection by N95 respirators when they were fit-tested compared to surgical masks. (14) This study found that 624 out of 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks. (15) Surgical masks This study found that surgical masks offered no protection at all against influenza. (16) Another study found that surgical masks had about 85% penetration ratio of aerosolized inactivated influenza particles and about 90% of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, although S aureus particles were about 6x the diameter of influenza particles. (17) Use of masks in surgery were found to slightlyincreaseincidence of infection over not masking in a study of 3,088 surgeries. (18) The surgeons’ masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients. Other studies found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks. (19) (20) This study found that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” (21) This study found that medical masks have a wide range of filtration efficiency, with most showing a 30% to 50% efficiency. (22) Specifically, are surgical masks effective in stopping human transmission of coronaviruses? Both experimental and control groups, masked and unmasked respectively, were found to “not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols.” (23) In that study, they “did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus” as found in exhaled breath. A study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols. (24) In another study, that observed subjects while coughing, “neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.” And more viral particles were found on the outside than on the inside of masks tested. (25) Cloth masks Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various cloth masks examined in this study were between 74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33% (26) Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks. (27) This 1920 analysis of cloth mask use during the 1918 pandemic examines the failure of masks to impede or stop flu transmission at that time, and concluded that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen penetration would have required a suffocating number of layers, and could not be used for that reason, as well as the problem of leakage vents around the edges of cloth masks. (28) Masks against Covid-19 The New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the topic of mask use versus Covid-19 assesses the matter as follows: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” (29) 2. Are masks safe? During walking or other exercise Surgical mask wearers hadsignificantly increased dyspneaafter a 6-minute walk than non-mask wearers. (30) Researchers are concerned about possible burden of facemasks during physical activity on pulmonary, circulatory and immune systems, due to oxygen reduction and air trapping reducing substantial carbon dioxide exchange.As a result of hypercapnia, there may be cardiac overload, renal overload, and a shift to metabolic acidosis.(31) Risks of N95 respirators Pregnant healthcare workers were found to have a loss in volume of oxygen consumption by 13.8%compared to controls when wearing N95 respirators. 17.7% less carbon dioxide was exhaled. (32) Patients with end-stage renal disease were studied during use of N95 respirators. Their partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) decreased significantly compared to controls and increased respiratory adverse effects. (33) 19% of the patients developed various degrees ofhypoxemiawhile wearing the masks. Healthcare workers’ N95 respirators were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor influenza virus. (34) And 25% of healthcare workers’ facepiece respirators were found to contain influenza in an emergency department during the 2015 flu season. (35) Risks of surgical masks Healthcare workers’ surgical masks also were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers toharbor influenzavirus. (36) Various respiratory pathogens were found on the outer surface of used medical masks, which could result inself-contamination. The risk was found to behigherwith longer duration of mask use. (37) Surgical masks were also found to be a repository ofbacterialcontamination. The source of the bacteria was determined to be the body surface of the surgeons, rather than the operating room environment. (38) Given that surgeons are gowned from head to foot for surgery, this finding should be especially concerning for laypeople who wear masks. Without the protective garb of surgeons, laypeople generally have even more exposed body surface to serve as a source for bacteria to collect on their masks. Risks of cloth masks Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantlyhigher rates of influenza-like illnessafter four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls. (39) The increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to aweakening ofimmune functionduring mask use. Surgeons have been found to havelower oxygen saturation after surgerieseven as short as 30 minutes. (40) Low oxygen induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1). (41) This in turn down-regulates CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells, in turn, are necessary for viral immunity. (42) ?Please click HERE to send the form NOW. Time is of the essence. REFERENCES 1. T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2 2. J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings – personal protective and environmental measures. Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May.https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article 3. J Brainard, N Jones, et al. Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID19: A rapid systematic review. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 1.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf 4. L Radonovich M Simberkoff, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial. JAMA. 2019 Sep 3. 322(9): 824-833.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 5. J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574.https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 6. F bin-Reza, V Lopez, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. 2012 Jul; 6(4): 257-267.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/ 7. J Jacobs, S Ohde, et al. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Jun; 37(5): 417-419.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/ 8. M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk.https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf 9. S Grinshpun, H Haruta, et al. Performance of an N95 filtering facepiece particular respirator and a surgical mask during human breathing: two pathways for particle penetration. J Occup Env Hygiene. 2009; 6(10):593-603.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459620903120086 10. H Jung, J Kim, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2013 Jun. 14:991-1002.https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf 11. C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long 12. N95 masks explained.https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained 13. V Offeddu, C Yung, et al. Effectiveness of masks and respirators against infections in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Inf Dis. 65(11), 2017 Dec 1; 1934-1942.https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 14. C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo 15. M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20.https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601 16. C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo 17. N Shimasaki, A Okaue, et al. Comparison of the filter efficiency of medical nonwoven fabrics against three different microbe aerosols. Biocontrol Sci. 2018; 23(2). 61-69.https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en 18. T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01658736 19. N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf 20. N Mitchell, S Hunt. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual? J Hosp Infection. 18(3); 1991 Jul 1. 239-242.https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf 21. C DaZhou, P Sivathondan, et al. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery. JR Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223-228.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/ 22. L Brosseau, M Sietsema. Commentary: Masks for all for Covid-19 not based on sound data. U Minn Ctr Inf Dis Res Pol. 2020 Apr 1.https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data 23. N Leung, D Chu, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nature Research. 2020 Mar 7. 26,676-680 (2020).https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1 24. S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744 25. S Bae, M Kim, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Int Med. 2020 Apr 6.https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 26. S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744 27. C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long 28. W Kellogg. An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks. Am J Pub Health. 1920. 34-42.https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.10.1.34 29. M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63.https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 30. E Person, C Lemercier et al. Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance. Rev Mal Respir. 2018 Mar; 35(3):264-268.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/ 31. B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes. Exercise with facemask; are we handling a devil’s sword – a physiological hypothesis. Med Hypothese. 2020 Jun 22. 144:110002.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/ 32. P Shuang Ye Tong, A Sugam Kale, et al. Respiratory consequences of N95-type mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers – A controlled clinical study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Nov 16; 4:48.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/ 33. T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Formos Med Assoc. 2004 Aug; 103(8):624-628.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/ 34. F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/ 35. A Rule, O Apau, et al. Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31; 13(8): e0203223.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30169507/ 36. F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/ 37. A Chughtai, S Stelzer-Braid, et al. Contamination by respiratory viruses on our surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3; 19(1): 491.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/ 38. L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/ 39. C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 40. A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126.https://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf 41. D Lukashev, B Klebanov, et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha and its activation-inducible short isoform negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 2006 Oct 15; 177(8) 4962-4965.https://www.jimmunol.org/content/177/8/4962 42. A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD4+ T-cells in viral immunity. J Exper Med. 2012 Jun 30; 209(8):1391-1395.https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/3420330